Totally heard that in a Ewan McGregor / Obi-Wan Kenobi voice
I do understand the point you are making, so I am not asking for clarification. Iām just hoping that you donāt think that all these people have no regard for their neighbor. Itās obvious that is the case with many, unfortunately.
People are free to seek out the society of those they find it most congenial to live among. The Bible says we should love one another. If you throw in your lot with people who donāt believe that, well, you made your choice. Why should someone else pay the cost of your desire to associate with people who donāt care about you?
If you are an abbatoirist (?) who lives among vegans, move or get a new profession. Thereās no law of the universe that says you get to keep the same job your whole life. Ask the buggy whip manufacturers in the age of the car.
This argument is predicated upon the assumption that everyone has the power and the means to do what you suggest. If I bind you to a chair and gag you, and then tell you that you are free to get up from the chair any time you please, are you actually free to do so?
Your analogy is silly. No-one is that bound to living in or associating with a particular community. If you live in a town, or city, there are multiple communities you could be part of. Even in a rural area there will be several. And anyway, if people are banding together to share e.g. healthcare costs, they donāt have to live next door. See e.g. https://samaritanministries.org/ .
Zimbabwe. Mauritania. Myanmar. North Korea.
At least tell us which utopian planet you are living on, so that we can have a chance to join you.
Well yes, Iām not proposing this for those countries, am I? The implicit context of our discussion is a democracy where the people get to choose their own laws. In that context, I am proposing that we choose to have society be large and government be small, because that is better for peopleās wellbeing.
āYour political proposals couldnāt be implemented if we lived in a dictatorshipā is hardly a convincing point against them. Lots of good things canāt be done in a dictatorship.
So you want to disenfranchise those who receive assistance from the public purse because you donāt think itās right that everyone (where possible) should contribute to it, and you want to retain your utopian caring sharing New Testament anti-tithe free-hugs community only for those places where it would be āeasyā to implement? Or do you not feel those under an oppressorās boot deserve freedom too?
Yeah, itās easier to just roll over and ignore those lesser off than the rest of us. Just like youāre implying should be done in your taxless society. Even in the most generous scenario, there will always be people who donāt think the same way you do.
And speaking of dictatorships, have you even seen whatās happening in the United Kingdom and the United States lately?
Now youāre trolling.
Guys, it seems to me that this discussion here is on a bad trajectory.
You are arguing about something that is important to both of you.
From what you both wrote so far itās safe to assume that you are capable of talking in an opinionated, but respectful way.
Iām not a moderator, but since i started the thread, I take the liberty to ask you - maybe itās totally unnessesary - to calm down a bit in here.
Best regards
Tobi
Iād agree that @gerv and @neuro have strongly different views but I donāt see any problem with that as long as we all show respect. From what I have seen so far in this thread I have no complaints.
There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your views, mine are probably very close to those of @neruo but since there is nobody is being offensive or trying to shut down discussion here, I am happy for it to continue.
I remember some time back @oldgeek and myself were pretty vocal about @bryanlunduke and his views on professor Stephen hawking.